Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Well, when the storm broke Greek debt was owned by EU banks. A default would have hurt those very badly (with heavy repercussions in the more arcane markets) so the Troika spun the pain out long enough, by continuing to bail Greece out, for the debt to become owned by the public. So those 'chances' were very 'pragmatic' indeed - in fact carefully calculated - and after that point they didn't really care very much wtf happened to Greece.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Helpfully, US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, explained what that might mean for any post-Brexit trade deal with the US at the recent CBI conference. Britain would be expected to adopt laxer, ultra business-friendly US standards and its approach to standard-setting. There was no indication of any reciprocal concession. There is no need. The Brits “are on the ropes”, so they must accept whatever is offered. The WTO is too weak to offer any help, even if it could.

Fear not. The government is preparing for this brave new world. Liam Fox, international trade secretary, published his trade bill last week, allowing Britain to secure quickly and expeditiously the multiple trade deals that will allegedly follow Brexit. Importantly, he will be given prerogative rights to do whatever deal he can negotiate, without any recourse to parliament.

Britain, in short, is set to become economic carrion preyed on by mercantilist vultures, away from parliamentary scrutiny and without the strength in numbers provided by the EU.

the words of a leading American trade negotiator discussing the slow progress being made on a trade deal between the US and the EU. It was taking time, he said, because the US was having to learn how to deal with an adversary who was an equal. This was in stark contrast with the way the US deals with individual countries. “Normally we just fax them our terms and tell them to sign.”

__________________Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

Reading that quote (and people really should) it occurs to me that this is exactly what a substantial number of Tories want - to open up the UK to such predation *before* they have a chance to lose an election and allow someone else to put a brake on all that.

Is it possible that thoughts of their potential personal gains might make them that cynical? Could this be why the lame-duck May is being preserved against all concept of what is reasonable? Or is this just me being paranoid?

__________________"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, says he is planning for the possible collapse of Brexit negotiations with the UK.
Mr Barnier was talking to French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche days after giving the UK a two-week deadline to clarify key issues.

If I was a business leader (as opposed to just a businessman heavily dependent on EU trade, I wouldn't just be pushing for a transitional deal (which perforce will expire) or clarity on the post-Brexit position (after all it could be a complete disaster), I'd be pushing Theresa May to put someone competent and conscientious in charge of the negotiations not dumb, dumber and dumbererer.

If I was a business leader (as opposed to just a businessman heavily dependent on EU trade, I wouldn't just be pushing for a transitional deal (which perforce will expire) or clarity on the post-Brexit position (after all it could be a complete disaster), I'd be pushing Theresa May to put someone competent and conscientious in charge of the negotiations not dumb, dumber and dumbererer.

Even if we were to take the remarkable step of declaring Theresa May to be competent to carry out said negotiations, IMO she simply does not have the time to engage because she has other Prime Ministerial business to address.

From the BBC article I linked earlier:

Quote:

She said a CBI survey showed that 10% of firms had "already pressed the button on their contingency plans" in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

"A firm I spoke to in Belfast last year, who a manufactures in Belfast, because of tariffs and red tape that would result from a no-deal Brexit, they have pulled together plans for moving to France, so it's that kind of contingency plan that firms are putting together."

And the pace of planning by firms was picking up, she added with about 60% of firms saying they would have implemented contingency plans by the end of next March.

This organic fertiliser is starting to get real. When firms start scaling back operations and shutting up shop then that situation cannot be easily reversed (not least because they've gone through the time and expense of moving once).

This organic fertiliser is starting to get real. When firms start scaling back operations and shutting up shop then that situation cannot be easily reversed (not least because they've gone through the time and expense of moving once).

And in light of this, it surprises me what is happening in Dutch politics. As you may know, since a couple of weeks, we have a new government (a four-party coalition with a majority of 76 out of 150 seats). The biggest surprise in their coalition agreement is that they intend to scrap the dividend tax, which is now at 25%, even though none of the coalition parties had this in their election manifestos. And during the parliamentary debate on the coalition agreement, the leaders of the coalition partners were very unconvincing in defending this measure, while being vehemently criticized from the left-wing opposition.

Rumor in the press is that it was not just the general employers organization VNO-NCW that pushed for this measure, but that specifically the Anglo-Dutch multinationals Royal Dutch/Shell and Unilever pushed for it, threatening to relocate their headquarters from the Netherlands to London. How real is such a threat in the light of Brexit?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Strange how roles have reversed between the UK and China since Victoria's days. Maybe China will now force us to import their opium, and if we demur they will burn down Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Strange how roles have reversed between the UK and China since Victoria's days. Maybe China will now force us to import their opium, and if we demur they will burn down Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Payback can be a female dog. It wouldn't shock me to find that there are a lot of countries who have an historical score to settle with the UK and post-Brexit trade deals may be one way to do that.

This is a game changer suddenly May can't just storm out and ram through a diamond hard Brexit, now the her cabinet of clowns will have to come up with an actual negotiating strategy, David Davis may have to come into the office FOUR days a week!

This is a game changer suddenly May can't just storm out and ram through a diamond hard Brexit, now the her cabinet of clowns will have to come up with an actual negotiating strategy, David Davis may have to come into the office FOUR days a week!

Not if you see what David Davis has stated about the bill

To me it looks like giving the rest of Parliament the opportunity to own the disaster of a no-deal Brexit.

If Parliament rejects the deal, then there is a no-deal Brexit. So Davis can blame Parliament for denying the British People the opportunity of the Fantastic (TM) deal that he brokered.

If it accepts his deal, then that shows that he had the backing of Parliament.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

It's a double whammy. If Parliament vote against then it's their fault. If they vote in favour and the deal turns out to be a total lemon they get the blame for voting for it.

That't the not so subtle intent.

As an aside, I heard Kier Starmer on the Today programme this morning, and he came across very well.

The difference between him and the government actually seemed to be more than the difference between New Labour and Major's government in 1996, when New Labour did seem like the ones in the driving seat

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

To me it looks like giving the rest of Parliament the opportunity to own the disaster of a no-deal Brexit.

That's what I thought. Once again a piece of legislation where it's heads I win, tails you lose. There is still no indication that there is any contingency plan for the event that the offered deal (or no deal) is so bad that it will destroy the country.

The will of 52% of the people (many of whom had no idea what they were voting for - heck we still don't know 18 months on) will be used to wreck the UK.

Our findings indicate that there are no winners from Brexit, but only losers. Both parties involved would suffer substantial losses if denied free trade access to each other's market. However, while the current belief surrounding Brexit is that especially the UK has a great deal to lose, our sector-level input-output approach clearly shows that the EU-27 also stands to lose substantially and considerably more than previously thought.

See conclusion

__________________"To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."

They consider a Norway-style "soft" Brexit and a "hard" Brexit where the UK enjoys most favoured nation status.

The impact looks bad.....

both for the UK

Quote:

Our model predictions indicate that the UK is hit relatively harder than the rest of the EU-27 in both scenarios. In either case, Brexit reduces economic activity in the UK around three times more than in the EU-27. The UK will experience a drop in value added production as a percentage of GDP of 1.21% under a soft Brexit and up to 4.47% under a hard Brexit scenario. This corresponds to UK job losses of 139,860 jobs in the “soft” Brexit and 526,830 jobs in the “hard” Brexit scenario.

...and for the EU-27

Quote:

For the EU-27, the absolute job losses are larger, with the numbers of EU-27 jobs lost from Brexit varying between 284,440 jobs and 1,209,470 jobs respectively which corresponds to value added losses as a percentage of GDP of 0.38% for the “soft” and 1.54% for the “hard” Brexit. The losses in value added and jobs differ substantially across EU-27 member states. EU-27 member states that stand to lose most from Brexit are countries with close historical ties to the UK (e.g. Ireland, Malta) and small open economies on the European continent (e.g. Belgium and the Netherlands).

Which still poses the questions:

Why the hell is the UK pushing ahead with something so damaging ? Why do we seem determined to head for the hardest possible Brexit ? Why do we seem to have put our least competent and laziest people in charge of the most important negotiations of my lifetime ?

If they believed the Leave campaign, they were voting for an immeasurably brighter economic future, £350m a week for the NHS and being able to trade with the EU on the same (or even more favourable terms) as before.

Originally Posted by Aber

Because the EU has a say in the process too.

It's not the EU forcing the UK down the cul-de-sac of hard Brexit as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Aber

Because it has to be lead by politicians.

Then why did the PM seemingly pick the least competent ones for the job ?

What happens if a deal is finalised but needs a few extra days to sign. Will it be scrapped because it will over run a deadline set by law?

Details...

You have to look at the big picture and not get bogged down in minor matters.

Like how the UK can be outside the customs union and have an uncontrolled land border with the customs union without a massive smuggling problem.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

The thing to bear in mind is that as far dealing with Parliament goes conceding the final vote is just the latest in a string of retreats by May and co. I expect the pattern to continue with the current firm position of a 'take it or leave it' vote crumbling as the Tory Remainers threaten to line up with Labour to force changes. May is in the very same position as Cameron was with the poles reversed, now its the Remainers forcing concessions as May desperately tries to cling to her job and hope she can get through a week without another minister falling on their sword...

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

This deadline date that will be set by legislation.

What happens if a deal is finalised but needs a few extra days to sign. Will it be scrapped because it will over run a deadline set by law?

I wouldn't worry about it, May probably couldn't get a Brexit bill through parliament if she included a 100% pay rise and unlimited expenses for MPs in it.

Aston Martin has said it may have to halt production if the UK fails to strike a Brexit deal with the EU.
All new cars in the UK must have Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) approval, which is valid in the EU.
Without a UK-EU deal, that validity would cease for new cars from March 2019.

"Recertifying to a new type of approval, be that federal US, Chinese or even retrospectively applying to use the EU approval, would mean us stopping our production."

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

Don't be silly. If anything it's another example of the UK not thinking things through.

Quote:

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

On the day of Brexit the manufacture will by definition no longer take place within the EU. There is a different procedure for vehicles produced outside the EU than for vehicles produced in the EU. That on that day you still "might" be compliant with EU rules is nice but is not a reason for the EU to abandon procedures that it currently employs.

Quote:

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

Can you explain how to implement this, whilst leaving the customs union and without specific agreements in place to allow this?

There are literally thousands of such nuts and bolts agreements that would need to be in place on the day after we leave the EU.

The two-year timeframe was nowhere near enough to achieve that, even if the broad outline had been agreed.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending